Sefer Hachinuch artwork

Misva #591: Not to Take Collateral From a Widow

Sefer Hachinuch

English - November 28, 2023 13:00 - 4.42 MB - ★★★★★ - 4 ratings
Judaism Religion & Spirituality Homepage Download Apple Podcasts Google Podcasts Overcast Castro Pocket Casts RSS feed


The Torah commands in Parashat Ki-Teseh (Debarim 24:17), “Ve’lo Tahabol Beged Almana” – that one who lends money to a widow may not take something from her as collateral in lieu of payment. This applies regardless of whether the widow is needy or wealthy. Even if she is rich, it is forbidden for a lender to take one of her possessions as collateral. The Sefer Ha’hinuch explains that the Torah issued this prohibition in order to accustom us to act mercifully and compassionately. Widows are generally downtrodden and vulnerable, and taking collateral from a widow would make her feel taken advantage of. The Torah wants us to show particular compassion and sensitivity to widows, and so a creditor may not seize collateral from her. It is forbidden for a lender to take collateral from a widow even if she agrees to give one. This prohibition applies at all times and in all places, and is binding upon both men and women. One violates this command by taking collateral from a widow once the debt is due and she has not paid. It is permissible to take collateral from a widow as security at the time the loan is given. If a lender took collateral from a widow in violation of this command, he must return it. For this reason, he is not liable to Malkut, because Malkut are not administered when one committed a violation which he can rectify through payment. However, the Rambam maintains that if the lender took collateral and it was subsequently lost or destroyed, then he is liable to Malkut, since he can no longer rectify the violation by returning the object. The Sefer Ha’hinuch questions this ruling, noting that the value of the lost collateral will be deducted from the sum of the debt owed by the widow. Hence, the creditor is considered to have repaid for what he unlawfully took, and should therefore not be liable to Malkut even if the original object is lost or destroyed.